MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION  

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            10 DECEMBER 2002                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077120

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | | Director
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | | Chairperson
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | | Member
| Mr. Conrad V. Meyer | | Member

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.     
APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge was inequitable because it was based upon one isolated incident in 15 months of service.  He had no other adverse action.   

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 3 January 1986.  He completed training and was assigned to a troop command at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  

The applicant was counseled on 29 September 1986 because of his unsatisfactory appearance.  He was counseled on 16 October 1986 for his unsatisfactory performance of duty.  The applicant was counseled on                  5 November 1986 for his consistent use of foul language in the presence of his supervisor, a female civilian.  He was counseled on 12 December 1986 for his lackadaisical attitude and for not doing his work.

On 23 January 1987 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for failure to go to his place of duty.

The applicant was counseled on 24 February 1987 for using profanity in the work area.  

A 4 March 1987 incident report indicates that the applicant was arrested for shoplifting at a department store.  He was confined by civilian authorities.  He was returned to duty on 5 March 1987.

On 10 March 1987 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for using indecent language

On 10 March 1987 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.

The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he understood the basis for the contemplated action, its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the general discharge that he might receive.  He submitted a statement to the effect that he did not do enough to get other than an honorable discharge, and that he did not get busted for drugs or disobey a direct order.  He was not a super soldier, but he did things that helped the company.  He tried to be motivated.  He was turned down when he requested airborne and air assault school, hurting his morale.  He stated that charges were not strong and the counseling statements were very weak.  He stated that he knew the shoplifting charge was true, but that everyone makes mistakes.  He stated that if he could not get out of his company, he wanted to get out of the Army.  He stated that his work performance was very good.  

A 23 March 1987 report of medical examination shows that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that he was in good health.

On 23 March 1987 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be eliminated from the Army for acts or patterns of misconduct.  On 30 March 1987 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant receive a General Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 7 April 1987 for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a.  He had 1 year,         3 months, and 5 days of service.

In an unanimous opinion, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.  He was so notified on                     4 June 1998.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Paragraph 14-12a states that soldiers are subject to separation for a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions.  Paragraph 14-3 states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged for misconduct.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record. 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The applicant’s contention that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident is not borne out by the evidence of record.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__CLA __  __TSK_ _  __CVM __  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2002077120
SUFFIX |
RECON | YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED | 20021210
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR .  .  .  .  .
DISCHARGE REASON |
BOARD DECISION | DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1. | 110.00
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |